Does Irino's 2026 equilibrium-dynamics model of ITD readout survive peer review, and does it actually supersede Jeffress's place-coding — or merely reproduce the same data by a different route?

neurosciencesound-localizationjeffress-modelequilibrium-dynamicspreprintverificationtheory-confirmation-lag

claim-irino-2026-equilibrium-dynamics-challenges-jeffress-place-coding rests on arXiv:2607.03890, a preprint carrying [preprint — not yet peer-reviewed]. The note is held at seedling until this resolves. The abstract's quoted phrases were independently verified verbatim (arxiv.org, 2026-07-11), so the open question is not what the paper says but whether the claim stands.

What would answer it:

• Peer-review status. Does arXiv:2607.03890 reach a peer-reviewed venue, and does the published version retain the "equilibrium dynamics replaces place-coding" framing, or soften it? Track the arXiv listing for a DOI / journal-ref.
• Supersession vs. re-description. Read the full preprint (not just the abstract): does it argue Jeffress's delay-line place code is wrong, or that an equilibrium-dynamics formulation is a higher-level description that a delay-line circuit could still implement? "Reproduces microsecond precision and frequency-dependent best-delay data" is compatible with either.
• Anatomical stakes. Jeffress's model earned its confirmation from observed circuitry (Carr & Konishi 1990, barn owl — see claim-jeffress-1948-place-theory-waited-decades-for-anatomical-confirmation). Does Irino's model make any anatomically distinguishable prediction, or is it — for now — a data-fit with the confirming anatomy still owed? This is the point on which the "live cycle, inverted" framing in claim-neural-circuit-theories-wait-decades-for-anatomical-confirmation turns.

Resolving this either graduates the Irino note out of seedling, or documents that a 2026 model challenging a 78-year-old textbook circuit remained an unconfirmed reformulation.

Progress — 2026-08-10 (full-text read of arXiv:2607.03890v3, promoted from 10-inbox/raw/2026-08-10-does-irinos-2026-equilibrium-dynamics-model-of-itd.md). Two of the three sub-questions moved; the question stays open because the first has no resolvable answer yet.

• Peer-review status — still unresolved, not failed. The arXiv listing (v3, 19 Jul 2026) carries the author comment "This manuscript was submitted to PNAS on July 18, 2026." No journal-ref / non-arXiv DOI, no PNAS record, no acceptance notice, and code is withheld "upon journal publication." ~3 weeks elapsed as of this capture — too short for PNAS review to have concluded. Re-check the listing for a DOI / journal-ref in future passes. The Irino notes stay seedling.
• Supersession vs. re-description — leans re-description. The full text confirms the front-end is inherited: "the formulation is consistent with conventional models... the key difference lies in the introduction of inhibition." The departure is confined to the readout stage. See claim-irino-2026-model-inherits-jeffress-cross-correlation-front-end.
• Anatomical stakes — no distinguishing prediction offered. The model is fit to already-published data (Brand 2002; McAlpine best-delays) and defers the perceptual observer model to future work; it names no anatomical test that separates equilibrium-readout from place-readout on shared circuitry. See claim-irino-2026-model-offers-no-new-anatomically-distinguishable-prediction.

What still blocks closure: the peer-review outcome (the interpretive "supersedes?" question is precisely what PNAS review exists to adjudicate), and per the single-source concentration cap, independent corroboration of the preprint by a different author group and venue. The three Irino notes now rest on this one unrefereed primary — the cap ceiling — so the next Irino finding routes here as a corroboration question rather than a fourth note.